Judge Roy Moore defies feds: 'Law is very clear'

[TheOldSchool]

I don't need to dispute anything. Marriage is the joining of two people.

That isn't in the Constitution. States have always defined who could get married. There's no reason three or more couldn't marry if we are going to let marriage be defined as people want. Gay marriage activists are hypocritical to reject traditional marriage while staking their claim to the aspects of traditional marriage they want.

Change the Constitution to include sexual orientations of individuals to be protected like race, religion or gender and you'll at least have an honest argument.

Oh yeah? States have always defined who could marry? Like with interracial marriage right?

Yep, they did. Try to keep up. Homosexuality isn't a race though so it can't be overturned that way. If all men are being treated the same you can't say they aren't equal.

When it is overturned that way will you admit you were wrong? Or will you take the usual republican path and just keep whining about everything?

 

[The Rabbi]

Good for him. We need more men with guts to stand against federal tyranny.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Now, where is the power to define marriage delegated to the federal government in the Constitution? Post the exact quotation.

As you put the 10th amendment on point, let's break it down:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution"

The 14th amendment guarantees "Equal protection under the law" and applied that right to the states. It is a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Therefore, it's not a "states rights" issue, this is a power in the Constitution for the United States. Pesky Founding Fathers and their Article 5. I guess they aren't true Americans.

"where is the power to define marriage delegated to the federal government in the Constitution?"

The issue isn't "defining marriage" as you put it. The issue is that there are laws on the books in states that grants the right of marriage to citizens of their states. Now, a group is being classified as unworthy of that right.

When that occurs, the courts can apply 3 tests. Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny and Rational Basis tests.

In all gay marriage cases, the Rational basis test is the only one being applied since the court determined (wrongly IYAM) that Gay people do not have a history of "animus" towards that group. All these governments have to prove is that the classification has some "rational basis" to a "legitimate government interest". This is literally the lowest standard that must be met and 95% of the time, the government cannot come up with a legitimate government interest as to why this classification must exist.

That's why this issue is a loser. There is no legitimate government interest in denying two consenting adults the right to marry.

Equal protection is not a power of the federal government. So you are wrong right off the bat.
No group is classified as unworthy of anything. Please post any state law, constitutional amendment or ballot initiative that classifies anyone as unworthy.
The legitimate government interest is promoting stable couples with children. The majority of hetero couples meet that standard. 100% of same sex couples fail that standard.
Your post is a jumble of poorly understood concepts with no real point.

 

[The Rabbi]

Good for him. We need more men with guts to stand against federal tyranny.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Now, where is the power to define marriage delegated to the federal government in the Constitution? Post the exact quotation.

As you put the 10th amendment on point, let's break it down:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution"

The 14th amendment guarantees "Equal protection under the law" and applied that right to the states. It is a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Therefore, it's not a "states rights" issue, this is a power in the Constitution for the United States. Pesky Founding Fathers and their Article 5. I guess they aren't true Americans.

"where is the power to define marriage delegated to the federal government in the Constitution?"

The issue isn't "defining marriage" as you put it. The issue is that there are laws on the books in states that grants the right of marriage to citizens of their states. Now, a group is being classified as unworthy of that right.

When that occurs, the courts can apply 3 tests. Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny and Rational Basis tests.

In all gay marriage cases, the Rational basis test is the only one being applied since the court determined (wrongly IYAM) that Gay people do not have a history of "animus" towards that group. All these governments have to prove is that the classification has some "rational basis" to a "legitimate government interest". This is literally the lowest standard that must be met and 95% of the time, the government cannot come up with a legitimate government interest as to why this classification must exist.

That's why this issue is a loser. There is no legitimate government interest in denying two consenting adults the right to marry.

Very good analysis.

I look forward to Rabbi ignoring it.

Oh definietely. Because when it comes to actually following the law, Conservatives have a huge problem with it when it's against their "morals" which is a complete sham. They just state something and that makes it true.

No, conservatives are following the law. Libs want to whine to courts.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't need to dispute anything. Marriage is the joining of two people.

That isn't in the Constitution. States have always defined who could get married. There's no reason three or more couldn't marry if we are going to let marriage be defined as people want. Gay marriage activists are hypocritical to reject traditional marriage while staking their claim to the aspects of traditional marriage they want.

Change the Constitution to include sexual orientations of individuals to be protected like race, religion or gender and you'll at least have an honest argument.

States have always had the right to define marriage- subject to constitutional guarantees.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws at least 3 times- all based upon equal treatment claims.

On sexual preferences? I call bull.

Call whatever you want.

You are obsessed about sexual preferences- the Supreme Court was focusing on equal treatment before the law, and that marriage is an individual right that can only be denied when the State can demonstrate a specific State interest that is accomplished by denying that right.

 

[Syriusly]

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Now, where is the power to define marriage delegated to the federal government in the Constitution? Post the exact quotation.

As you put the 10th amendment on point, let's break it down:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution"

The 14th amendment guarantees "Equal protection under the law" and applied that right to the states. It is a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Therefore, it's not a "states rights" issue, this is a power in the Constitution for the United States. Pesky Founding Fathers and their Article 5. I guess they aren't true Americans.

"where is the power to define marriage delegated to the federal government in the Constitution?"

The issue isn't "defining marriage" as you put it. The issue is that there are laws on the books in states that grants the right of marriage to citizens of their states. Now, a group is being classified as unworthy of that right.

When that occurs, the courts can apply 3 tests. Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny and Rational Basis tests.

In all gay marriage cases, the Rational basis test is the only one being applied since the court determined (wrongly IYAM) that Gay people do not have a history of "animus" towards that group. All these governments have to prove is that the classification has some "rational basis" to a "legitimate government interest". This is literally the lowest standard that must be met and 95% of the time, the government cannot come up with a legitimate government interest as to why this classification must exist.

That's why this issue is a loser. There is no legitimate government interest in denying two consenting adults the right to marry.

Very good analysis.

I look forward to Rabbi ignoring it.

Oh definietely. Because when it comes to actually following the law, Conservatives have a huge problem with it when it's against their "morals" which is a complete sham. They just state something and that makes it true.

No, conservatives are following the law. Libs want to whine to courts.

LOL.....Conservatives love to whine in court whenever they think that law is unjust.

They just also reserve the right to whine whenever anyone else goes to court.

 

[Syriusly]

Good for him. We need more men with guts to stand against federal tyranny.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Now, where is the power to define marriage delegated to the federal government in the Constitution? Post the exact quotation.

As you put the 10th amendment on point, let's break it down:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution"

The 14th amendment guarantees "Equal protection under the law" and applied that right to the states. It is a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Therefore, it's not a "states rights" issue, this is a power in the Constitution for the United States. Pesky Founding Fathers and their Article 5. I guess they aren't true Americans.

"where is the power to define marriage delegated to the federal government in the Constitution?"

The issue isn't "defining marriage" as you put it. The issue is that there are laws on the books in states that grants the right of marriage to citizens of their states. Now, a group is being classified as unworthy of that right.

When that occurs, the courts can apply 3 tests. Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny and Rational Basis tests.

In all gay marriage cases, the Rational basis test is the only one being applied since the court determined (wrongly IYAM) that Gay people do not have a history of "animus" towards that group. All these governments have to prove is that the classification has some "rational basis" to a "legitimate government interest". This is literally the lowest standard that must be met and 95% of the time, the government cannot come up with a legitimate government interest as to why this classification must exist.

That's why this issue is a loser. There is no legitimate government interest in denying two consenting adults the right to marry.

Equal protection is not a power of the federal government. So you are wrong right off the bat.
No group is classified as unworthy of anything. Please post any state law, constitutional amendment or ballot initiative that classifies anyone as unworthy.
The legitimate government interest is promoting stable couples with children. The majority of hetero couples meet that standard. 100% of same sex couples fail that standard.
Your post is a jumble of poorly understood concepts with no real point.

Wow- considering his actually represents what the legal arguments are- and you just provide your own unsubstantiated opinion- your post is pretty comical.

Your post is rife with problems but foremost among them is that even if the State was using marriage to 'promote stable couples with children, denying equal access to marriage for same gender couples does nothing to further that State interest.

And that is where you will always lose.

States can't deny rights to some people- simply because they only want to give those rights to other people.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Baker v. Nelson made marriage an issue for the states. If the SCOTUS overrules their own ruling in favor of homosexual marriage and claims there is a federal right to marriage, the game is over. The pushback from folks like the Duggars, the Duck Dynasty, F. Graham and tens of millions of other individuals and groups will be enormous. There never has been a right to marriage.

 

[JFK_USA]

Good for him. We need more men with guts to stand against federal tyranny.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Now, where is the power to define marriage delegated to the federal government in the Constitution? Post the exact quotation.

As you put the 10th amendment on point, let's break it down:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution"

The 14th amendment guarantees "Equal protection under the law" and applied that right to the states. It is a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Therefore, it's not a "states rights" issue, this is a power in the Constitution for the United States. Pesky Founding Fathers and their Article 5. I guess they aren't true Americans.

"where is the power to define marriage delegated to the federal government in the Constitution?"

The issue isn't "defining marriage" as you put it. The issue is that there are laws on the books in states that grants the right of marriage to citizens of their states. Now, a group is being classified as unworthy of that right.

When that occurs, the courts can apply 3 tests. Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny and Rational Basis tests.

In all gay marriage cases, the Rational basis test is the only one being applied since the court determined (wrongly IYAM) that Gay people do not have a history of "animus" towards that group. All these governments have to prove is that the classification has some "rational basis" to a "legitimate government interest". This is literally the lowest standard that must be met and 95% of the time, the government cannot come up with a legitimate government interest as to why this classification must exist.

That's why this issue is a loser. There is no legitimate government interest in denying two consenting adults the right to marry.

Equal protection is not a power of the federal government. So you are wrong right off the bat.
No group is classified as unworthy of anything. Please post any state law, constitutional amendment or ballot initiative that classifies anyone as unworthy.
The legitimate government interest is promoting stable couples with children. The majority of hetero couples meet that standard. 100% of same sex couples fail that standard.
Your post is a jumble of poorly understood concepts with no real point.

Wow- considering his actually represents what the legal arguments are- and you just provide your own unsubstantiated opinion- your post is pretty comical.

Your post is rife with problems but foremost among them is that even if the State was using marriage to 'promote stable couples with children, denying equal access to marriage for same gender couples does nothing to further that State interest.

And that is where you will always lose.

States can't deny rights to some people- simply because they only want to give those rights to other people.

Apparently The Rabbi didn't take Constitutional Law in law school because that is literally the tests you learn about in Law School

 

[Skylar]

There never has been a right to marriage.

That's what you say. This is what the Supreme Court says:

Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man

Loving v. Virginia

You v. the USSC on what is a right has the same winner ever time. And its not you.

 

[Skylar]

Equal protection is not a power of the federal government. So you are wrong right off the bat.

Says you. The 14th amendemnt tells a very different story.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th amendment of the United States.

You pretend the equal protection clause doesn't exist.

Um....so what? You have no idea what you're talking about.

Please post any state law, constitutional amendment or ballot initiative that classifies anyone as unworthy.

If gays don't have equal protection under the law, then the Equal Protection Clause is violated. And if the State creates an arbitrary restriction that prevents them from marrying, a restriction that can't meet constitutional muster, then gays don't have equal protection of the laws.

You say 'uh-uh'. The Federal Judiciary has found again and again that this is exactly the case.

Remember, Rabbi....and this is fundamental: you're fucking clueless. You don't know how the judiciary works. You haven't the slightest clue how the States and federal government interacts. And you've never so much as read the constitution. Let alone understand it.

The legitimate government interest is promoting stable couples with children. The majority of hetero couples meet that standard. 100% of same sex couples fail that standard.
Your post is a jumble of poorly understood concepts with no real point.[/QUOTE]

 

[bodecea]

He is one judge trying to block the law - the definition of an activist judge. It's not his first go 'round with judicial activism either.

He will get slapped down - AGAIN. I just hope he doesn't hurt too many innocent victims in the process.

NO, the law is clear. Defining marriage is a power left to the states. The Federal gov't has no power in this area.

If if has no power then just what exactly is Loving v Virginia, a TV script?

LOL - of course the feds have a well-established role in protecting civil rights.

No civil rights issue. Homosexuals are not a protected class under federal law.
Try again.

We're not tax-paying, law-abiding citizens?

 

[bodecea]

He is one judge trying to block the law - the definition of an activist judge. It's not his first go 'round with judicial activism either.

He will get slapped down - AGAIN. I just hope he doesn't hurt too many innocent victims in the process.

The victims are the 80% majority of Alabama people who voted for an amendment to their constitution to prohibit same sex marriage.

As, I suppose the 70% + who until recently didn't want to let go of Jim Crow?

 

[bodecea]

I'm surprised this isn't blowing up all over the web. It's such a hot topic, whether you agree or disagree. In Alabama, a same-sex marriage fight is upon us. Last month, a federal judge struck down the state's law against the unions. But Sunday night, "in a dramatic show of defiance toward the federal judiciary, Chief JusticeRoy S. Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the state’s probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on Monday, the day same-sex marriages were expected to begin."

The Phantom Diaries Alabama Objects to Gay Marriage

I don't think it's being discussed much because not a single person in the world is surprised that Alabama, the butthole of America, is on the wrong side of history yet again.

And when blacks and Hispanics voted no to gay marriage in California? I mean come on I could see that happening in Alabama but how do you explain that in California the liberal freak show state in the union.

Are you saying ALL black and hispanic voters voted for Prop H8?

Are you deflecting? I think we know the answer no need to respond.

Nope...asking you a simple question. Are you saying that ALL black and hispanic voters voted for Prop H8?

 

[bodecea]

They don't get a vote, and never should have been allowed to.

Why not? Be specific.

Because we don't have mob rule here. If we did you nuts would outlaw Islam, and the Catholics more than likely.

So you want to strip the citizens of their right to vote?

What if people vote to ban private ownership of guns?

Yeah, there are Constitutional protections that are not subject to vote.

Arms are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage is not.

And the kind of arms mentioned are not the arms used today. Checkmate.........................unless the Constitution is open to interpretation.

 

[bodecea]

What if people vote to ban private ownership of guns?

Yeah, there are Constitutional protections that are not subject to vote.

Arms are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage is not.

SCOTUS and the majority of Americans disagree with you.

Your lame arguments are no better here than they have been in court.

Try again.

Where is the power to regulate marriage given to the federal government in the Constitution? Why can you not answer the question?

I have many times brainiac
14th amendment

14th Amendment doesn't apply. Only the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Guess which one is more knowledgeable of Constitutional law?

 

[bodecea]

What if people vote to ban private ownership of guns?

Yeah, there are Constitutional protections that are not subject to vote.

Arms are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage is not.

SCOTUS and the majority of Americans disagree with you.

Your lame arguments are no better here than they have been in court.

Try again.

Where is the power to regulate marriage given to the federal government in the Constitution? Why can you not answer the question?

The Constitution has the power to enforce equal treatment under the law. That's all the power it needs.

There is equal treatment. This has been shown over and over.
Try again.

The federal courts disagree with you over and over again. Feel free to try again yourself....while states # 38-50 legalize gay marriage.

 

[bodecea]

wow, you get your ass kicked by salad bowls too?

Not gonna waste my time - Rabbi, Steve - you guys are gonna have to up your game before you get to debate with me again.

Translation: I'm getting my ass kicked because I am posting stupid garbage.
The 14th A is irrelevant here. No one is being denied any rights. The 10th is explicit that states have power over whatever was not delegated to the feds. That includes marriage, which has always been a state issue.

Same sex couples are being denied the right to enter into the contractual agreement that opposite sex couples are allowed to enter into,

and thus are being singled out to be denied any benefits that contract provides.

Couples do not have rights. Individuals have rights.

States give couples rights when they pass laws that offer potential benefit to couples. Once the state has taken that step, they are subject to comply with the Constitutional mandates on equal protection.

No, states grant privileges, not rights. Your argument sucks, and it conflates a "right to marriage" with the benefits that accrue from that right.
Total fail.

You keep saying such things as one state after another legalizes gay marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

Translation: I'm getting my ass kicked because I am posting stupid garbage.
The 14th A is irrelevant here. No one is being denied any rights. The 10th is explicit that states have power over whatever was not delegated to the feds. That includes marriage, which has always been a state issue.

Same sex couples are being denied the right to enter into the contractual agreement that opposite sex couples are allowed to enter into,

and thus are being singled out to be denied any benefits that contract provides.

Couples do not have rights. Individuals have rights.

States give couples rights when they pass laws that offer potential benefit to couples. Once the state has taken that step, they are subject to comply with the Constitutional mandates on equal protection.

No, states grant privileges, not rights. Your argument sucks, and it conflates a "right to marriage" with the benefits that accrue from that right.
Total fail.

You keep saying such things as one state after another legalizes gay marriage.

Almost no states have legalized gay marriage It has been imposed on them by an acitivist judiciary undermining the wll of the people. If people actually voted for that crap I could accept it. as legitimate.

 

[The Rabbi]

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Now, where is the power to define marriage delegated to the federal government in the Constitution? Post the exact quotation.

As you put the 10th amendment on point, let's break it down:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution"

The 14th amendment guarantees "Equal protection under the law" and applied that right to the states. It is a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Therefore, it's not a "states rights" issue, this is a power in the Constitution for the United States. Pesky Founding Fathers and their Article 5. I guess they aren't true Americans.

"where is the power to define marriage delegated to the federal government in the Constitution?"

The issue isn't "defining marriage" as you put it. The issue is that there are laws on the books in states that grants the right of marriage to citizens of their states. Now, a group is being classified as unworthy of that right.

When that occurs, the courts can apply 3 tests. Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny and Rational Basis tests.

In all gay marriage cases, the Rational basis test is the only one being applied since the court determined (wrongly IYAM) that Gay people do not have a history of "animus" towards that group. All these governments have to prove is that the classification has some "rational basis" to a "legitimate government interest". This is literally the lowest standard that must be met and 95% of the time, the government cannot come up with a legitimate government interest as to why this classification must exist.

That's why this issue is a loser. There is no legitimate government interest in denying two consenting adults the right to marry.

Equal protection is not a power of the federal government. So you are wrong right off the bat.
No group is classified as unworthy of anything. Please post any state law, constitutional amendment or ballot initiative that classifies anyone as unworthy.
The legitimate government interest is promoting stable couples with children. The majority of hetero couples meet that standard. 100% of same sex couples fail that standard.
Your post is a jumble of poorly understood concepts with no real point.

Wow- considering his actually represents what the legal arguments are- and you just provide your own unsubstantiated opinion- your post is pretty comical.

Your post is rife with problems but foremost among them is that even if the State was using marriage to 'promote stable couples with children, denying equal access to marriage for same gender couples does nothing to further that State interest.

And that is where you will always lose.

States can't deny rights to some people- simply because they only want to give those rights to other people.

Apparently The Rabbi didn't take Constitutional Law in law school because that is literally the tests you learn about in Law School

Which law school did you attend?

 

[BluesLegend]

I'm surprised this isn't blowing up all over the web. It's such a hot topic, whether you agree or disagree. In Alabama, a same-sex marriage fight is upon us. Last month, a federal judge struck down the state's law against the unions. But Sunday night, "in a dramatic show of defiance toward the federal judiciary, Chief JusticeRoy S. Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the state’s probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on Monday, the day same-sex marriages were expected to begin."

The Phantom Diaries Alabama Objects to Gay Marriage

I don't think it's being discussed much because not a single person in the world is surprised that Alabama, the butthole of America, is on the wrong side of history yet again.

And when blacks and Hispanics voted no to gay marriage in California? I mean come on I could see that happening in Alabama but how do you explain that in California the liberal freak show state in the union.

Are you saying ALL black and hispanic voters voted for Prop H8?

Are you deflecting? I think we know the answer no need to respond.

Nope...asking you a simple question. Are you saying that ALL black and hispanic voters voted for Prop H8?

Yes ALL black and Hispanic voters voted for Prop H8 every last one of them plus a bunch of illegals and their kids and a bag of mail in ballots from Mexico. /sarcasm /eyeroll